[MD] sq is not other than DQ

[MarshaV]

On Apr 1, 2011, at 4:34 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:

> OK Marsha, so ...
> 
> Since sq clearly is other than DQ, we have a problem.
> The problem is the word "is".

i do not think the word 'is' is the problem.  Seems to me it has more to do with 
the language.  The non-affirming negative was a tough one for me, but now 
seems the best way to state it.   


> All current patterns of sq probably started (evolutionary) life in DQ at source.
> And in some sense the static patterns are patterns in otherwise more
> or less dynamic patterns, otherwise we wouldn't recognise them as
> static patterns.

Sq dose not exist as other than DQ.  Trying to rectify our paradoxical language 
is not pointing in the correct direction.  imho  


> Most of the undergrowth and leaf-mould in your forest of trees may
> eventually end up in trees, but at any moment in time as a forrester
> it's worth knowing your trees from your undergrowth. So.

It's all analogy.  


> I might say DQ is the source of all sq perhaps ? (about becoming
> rather than being, unsurprisingly, given the words dynamic and
> static). But for me this semantic debate is really a pragmatic
> question, of what you want to would do with your statement ? Apart
> from annoy people who don't see the world the way you do ;-)

I do not recognize sq as 'being.'   I disagree that it is a semantic debate 
on my part.  It represents how I understand/ experience the world.  It is 
how the MoQ has evolve for me.  -  And the annoyance of other people 
is their pattern.  I get annoyed with cowardly nons de plume.  Life is 
sometimes tough that way.  


> Like, assuming it is any value to talk about DQ and sq, the primary
> division in MoQ, it is valuable to distinguish between them (as Pirsig
> did). How could we do otherwise, and where's the value ?

I agree with you that there is value.  It has been valuable to my 
understanding.  But to be told that I CANNOT state 'sq is not other 
than DQ' is retarding experience.  


Marsha  




> 
> Ian
> 
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 9:01 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Re:  sq is not other than DQ
>> 
>> 
>> I'm no genius, but I understand this statement as a non-affirming negative.  It is inclusive.
>> 
>> The statement 'a forest is trees' allows for one to say:  Yes, and it is undergrowth, animals and insects too.  Where if you state that 'a forest is not other than trees' there is no allowance in the statement to point to other additional possibilities.
>> 
>> 
>> So my statement is:   sq is not other than DQ.  -  The fundamental nature of sq is DQ.
>> 
>> 
>> The statement precisely represents my understanding.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 
>> 
>> Moq_Discuss mailing list
>> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
>> Archives:
>> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
>> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html


 
___